RATIONED FASHION
The Second World War had been raging for nearly two years, when, in June 1941, clothes rationing was introduced. Dress historian Jayne Shrimpton examines the impact this was to have on our ancestors’ wardrobes.
80 years ago this June the effects of the war hit the nation’s wardrobes. Dress historian Jayne Shrimpton looks at the impact on style & morale
Before war erupted in September 1939, Britain imported many consumer goods, but during the conflict food had to be home-produced and other raw materials reserved mainly for the production of arms, vehicles and uniforms. To ensure fair distribution of scarce but essential resources among the civilian population – chiefly food, clothing and furniture – supplies were strictly rationed. Clothes rationing was introduced in Britain 80 years ago, in June 1941.
Introducing restrictions
Behind the government’s wartime strategy was a commitment to providing everyone with the necessities of life in the face of material shortages. To that end, a rationing scheme based on the allocation of coupons was launched – a system deriving, ironically, from the German rationing plan of November 1939.
In Britain first petrol was rationed from late 1939, followed by foodstuffs from January 1940. Some government ministers favoured a similar approach to clothing and textiles, clothes rationing being first considered as early as June 1940: however, Churchill opposed the idea as he felt it would adversely affect morale.
In time, the escalating demands of war made it inevitable that clothing and fabric purchases would have to be restricted, like other commodities.
The supply and circulation of civilian clothing had been rapidly declining: many garment factories had been requisitioned and much of the industry’s labour force withdrawn for essential war work. Raw materials were growing scarce and inflation was forcing up the price of clothes:
by March 1941 the cost of dress articles had risen by an alarming 69%, chiefly due to purchase tax, introduced the previous October. Most basic garments and footwear were taxed at 16%, but certain items including furs, head shawls, hairnets, veils, gloves, belts, suspenders, shoe and corset laces, hair and curling pins all carried a hefty 33% per cent purchase tax.
The government finally acknowledged that clothing costs had to be stabilised, and in a way that benefitted everybody equally. Yet when the decision came to ration dress-related purchases in June 1941, it came as a shock to the general public and seemed to have been made hastily. At the time of the public announcement by Oliver Lyttleton, President of the Board of Trade, on 1st June, clothing coupons had not even been printed and initially some people found themselves using spare margarine coupons in their food ration books for clothes.
The rationing system
Clothes rationing embodied a system whereby both coupons and cash were needed to buy new articles of dress. Each garment type was awarded a ‘points’ value – that is, its purchase demanded a given quantity of coupons, according to how much fabric and labour was involved in its manufacture. As always, goods still carried different price tags and cost varying sums of money, but the number of coupons needed for, say, a dress or a suit remained constant, whether purchased in Woolworths or Harrods.
Certain articles could still be bought without coupons, such as clothing for children below four years, work boiler-suits, wooden clogs, boot and shoe laces, sanitary towels, tapes, braids, ribbons and sewing and mending thread. Second-hand clothes, if ‘genuine’, were also outside the rationing system, in recognition that poorer women often bought much of the family’s clothing at rummage sales and market stalls. Conversely, heavilytaxed luxury items like hats and most other headgear, lace and fur coats, were also exempt from rationing.
Otherwise, most new clothing had to be purchased using coupons within the ‘points’ or rationing system. Initially the allowance for every British adult was set at 66 coupons per year, with an additional 50 coupons for expectant mothers. To help the general public understand the new system, the Board of Trade issued a two-penny booklet entitled Clothing Coupon Quiz. It began by explaining the importance of rationing scarce resources, and how the clothes rationing system would work. It then presented a comprehensive table itemising the number of coupons needed for each main item of adults’ and children’s clothing. Finally, a ‘question and answer’ section addressed specific issues, explaining for example how men in the services would acquire clothing, and how coupons were needed for domestic servants’ uniforms.
National newspapers also published the main details of the rationing system, highlighting the duty of everyone as good citizens to participate as directed. The Board of Trade wanted everyone to understand the scheme and be assured that: ‘There is enough for all if we share and share alike.’ The fashion press also stood behind the government, supporting rationing and campaigning for an end to extravagance in dress. In October 1941 Vogue pronounced: ‘Rationing is fair. Nothing counts in comparison with victory. We may not grin, but we can bear it. It is fair to coax two dresses out of one length.’
Shoppers also had to hand over coupons for dressmaking fabric, as well as ready-made clothes, yet dressmaking was often cheaper and saved coupons. Many women were already experienced at home sewing and when faced with escalating shortages became extraordinarily creative and experimental in their use of textiles. Imaginative renovating and recycling of garments and accessories demonstrated tremendous ingenuity and adaptability in dealing with clothes rationing.
Tightening restrictions
The 66-coupon annual allowance first set in June 1941 was hardly generous: for example, a woman’s jacket or short coat required eleven
As always, goods still carried different price tags and cost varying sums of money, but the number of coupons needed for, say, a dress or a suit remained constant, whether purchased in Woolworths or Harrods
coupons; a dress also eleven; a pair of stockings two; a girl’s gym tunic six; a boy’s raincoat or overcoat eleven and a man’s suit twenty-six coupons. However, despite the seemingly rushed imposition of clothes rationing, public reaction was initially mainly relatively positive, perhaps because few in Britain believed that it could last for very long. In mid-1941 it was difficult to envisage the extent to which worsening shortages would affect the everyday life of the nation, not only for the duration of the war, but in the years of austerity that followed.
As the war continued and resources for civilian use grew increasingly scarce, in spring 1942 the clothing coupon allowance was slashed from 66 per person annually to 60 coupons for fifteen months: approximately 48 coupons per year. In 1942, household linens were also included in the scheme, thereby further reducing the number of coupons available for purchase of clothing. Again in 1943, coupons were reduced to 36 per
person. The coupon allowance was at its lowest in 1945 and 1946, following the war: during the eight-month period from September 1945 until April 1946 only 24 coupons were issued per person – equivalent to 3 coupons per month.
A fair solution?
In instigating clothes rationing, the British government had been determined to ensure fair shares for all – as far as was humanly possible in an inherently classconscious, socially unbalanced society. Realistically this meant the same basic coupon entitlement for everyone, with a little discreet flexibility for the wealthy and socially wellconnected. Predictably some comfortably-placed households had been able to start stock-piling items when clothes rationing was first discussed in mid-1940. Additionally, the privileged classes already naturally possessed many more clothes than those lower down the social scale: prosperous families were better prepared at the outset and once rationing came into force could easily manage for longer with what they already possessed. As Tory MP ‘Chips’ Cannon wrote in his diary, after bemoaning the modest coupon allowance…. ‘Luckily, I have 40 or more [suits]…i have enough clothes to last me for years.’
It was also true that the affluent, while receiving the same coupon allowance as others, had the funds to purchase the best quality garments when making purchases – high-end items that would prove far more durable than the inferior economical
The Board of Trade wanted everyone to understand the scheme and be assured that: ‘There is enough for all if we share and share alike.’
goods aimed at lower incomes. It was this inescapable inequality even when dress was rationed that later prompted the Utility clothing scheme and austerity measures aimed at ensuring overall higher standards in textile and garment manufacturing.
Managing coupons
The aim of rationing had been to utilise scarce materials to optimum effect and ensure that sufficient clothes were available, and affordable, albeit often at a basic level. The importance of keeping up appearances throughout society was well understood and it was hoped that a decently-clad populace would help to maintain morale, especially amongst women who managed the household and kept the ‘home fires burning’. Yet it was often less fortunate families
Children’s clothing and shoe exchanges were set up where outgrown items could be swapped for larger sizes without having to part with precious coupons
who had little to begin with and had to manage on low incomes who struggled most within the tight coupon allowance and were in the most urgent need.
Extra coupons were made available for certain occupational groups, including those wearing civilian uniforms and factory and other manual workers, who needed overalls. Then, from 1942 all children were given an extra 10 coupons, especially as regulation school uniform remained compulsory in most establishments during the war. New mothers received 50 additional coupons and extra coupons were given to families with young children rapidly out-growing their clothes and shoes. Parents were worried about foot deformities arising from ill-fitting shoes and in response to the needs of growing families the Women’s Voluntary Service (WVS) opened clothing exchanges at which decent children’s clothes and shoes could be exchanged for larger sizes, without spending either money or precious ration coupons.
Unlike food rationing, consumers did not have to register with particular clothing shops and consequently clothing coupon fraud was rife, ranging from stolen ration books and forgeries to coupon-swapping and a flourishing black-market trade in unused coupons. The definition of ‘second-hand’ clothes – exempt from coupons – was also loose, providing a convenient loophole: many local street markets became a magnet for ‘spivs’ and a mart for black-market goods looted from bombed shops, warehouses, even houses. At times the situation must have seemed desperate, almost unbearable: occasionally women protested in the streets, urging passers-by to sign petitions against rationing, although such campaigns achieved nothing.
Some civilians acquired scarce goods however they could, while many later recalled with pride how they had managed within their coupon allowance by carefully planning a few essential dress purchases each year. Older women often made personal sacrifices, giving away clothing coupons to young relatives, especially school children. And when daughters married during the war, many family members, even the wider community pooled their valuable coupons to buy or make a romantic outfit for the bride. It was even reported that ordinary brides-to-be sent coupons to Princess Elizabeth to fund her lavish wedding gown, worn for her marriage to Prince Philip Mountbatten in November 1947.
Beginning 80 years ago, clothes rationing challenged some people, bringing out the best in many. We or our family members recalling those times have many stories to tell about rationed fashion both during and after the war – for shortages persisted, reflecting the bleak post-war economic landscape. Clothes rationing was finally discontinued after almost 8 years, in March 1949 – just in time for the new generation of ‘baby boomers’!